Makes sense to me. We tend to expect other people to think like us. So if a people are motivated by a strong religious belief, it stands to reason that they'd use religion as a means of motivating others. And just because you recognize that religions can be false doesn't mean you question your own religious faith. Indeed, all monotheistic religious faiths are predicated on the assumption that every other religion is false, or at least misinterpreted. So I really don't see any contradiction.
We've had this debate before, of course, and aren't likely to convince the other, but I still can't see people who pretend to be a diety, and are thus routine witnesses--from a
top-down perspective to boot--to the artificiality of a religious system, turning around at the end of the day and practicing their own faith with such unabashed devotion and belief that they're willing to perform acts almost tantamount to child sacrifice, and then their entire society collapses when it turns out their deity has perished, much like their own Jem'Hadar comitting mass seppuku when a Founder dies (there's just a point at which irony becomes excessive, no?). I already find the beliefs of those monotheists who beatifically dismiss all other faiths while being certain of their own tinged with no small amount of hypocrisy; but it's one thing to be a mere mortal in service of a deity one believes exists, as opposed to another one doesn't believe in, and quite another thing to pretend to be that deity, and actively know (no belief required) of the falsehood. And, as I had said before, I was dissatisfied with the use of theology to explain the Founders' actions; because of the arbitrariness of much religious scripture, you can justify pretty much anything with an appeal to faith, and "God made me do it" doesn't make for interesting worldbuilding.
If some author started talking about the five steps to salvation in the acknowledgments because Jesus Christ was a big influence on them, would you consider that "entirely appropriate?"
People acknowledge Christ, God or whatever other deities they ascribe to all the time, for all kinds of things one couldn't possibly imagine omnipotent entities giving a flying damn about; sports, music, acting... (I remember a skit, I believe it was MAD TV, where God comes down to a hip-hop award show to tell eveybody "Stop thanking me; I had and want nothing to do with this.") So yes, the general consensus seems that giving a shout-out to Jay-See is entirely appropriate in thank-yous and acknowledgements. I never get angry when, say, Forrest Whittaker thanks God in his acceptance speech at the Oscars. Again, I think it's rather silly (does the Creator of the Universe really have nothing better to do than make sure you remember your lines?), but it's entirely his right to believe it, and say it.
No, because Acknowledgements are the place for acknowledgments, not for PSAs.
By the way, what is a "PSA"? I tried to look it up, but far too many things use that as an acronym. (Seriously, people, what happened to the good old innovative acronyms, like S.H.I.E.L.D. and C.L.I.T.O.R.I.S.?)
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
ETA: Oh, look, a second page. I absolutely must adjust my posts-per-page setting.
They thanked God, but they didn't start outlining the gospel, which would be more analogous to the example in question. Thanking someone is a lot different than mentioning an unjust and unlawful war (not the exact quote, but I'm pretty sure that's close enough). That's not thanking anyone, that's a political statement.
I think that, as a believer, and someone who probably hears a great many casual expressions of belief, you don't have a true appreciation for just how loaded with implications even the mere profession of divine existence is. If the authors had said, "There's a war" - that would just be stating a fact. "There's a war, and it's bad" - that's an opinion, or a political statement... just as "I thank Christ (and therefore assert the existence of such an entity) is an opinion, a theological statement. The believer might think they are merely expressing a fact ("there's a war" = "there's a god"), but I assure you those outside the specific religion (or all religions) clearly recognize the ideological apparatus behind the statement.
On a lighter note, while I'm editing the post, and considering the implications of divine acknowledgements, has anybody ever given thought to what actually being stated, beyond theological concerns? If a Grammy winner thanks god for the win, does it mean god wanted them to win, and thus god wanted that artist's fellow nominees to lose? In years when one doesn't win (or doesn't even get nominated), does that mean god wanted
you to lose? And doesn't giving god a share of the credit in a way act as an attempt to place divine sanction on a product or event, i.e. if god didn't like that I'm singing about guns and pimps, he wouldn't have let me win? You know, this seemed silly when I started writing the paragraph, but now that I think of it, isn't there a portion of the population who believe that election wins are likewise divinely ordained? A dangerous stance, particularly if the winner is one of the believers...
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
RookieBatman, I never, never, never said that I "couldn't possibly understand how any Star Trek fan could reasonably hold my (your) position." What I said was that I couldn't see how any Star Trek fan could object to -an anti-war sentiment. But thanks for putting words in my mouth. 
